# A discussion on newer (02-forward) production Havanas...



## Gargamel (Nov 8, 2004)

as opposed to aged or vintage? A while back I had a PM conversation with someone I have come to respect over the years here. He doesn't post often but when he does his analysis, opinion, and discussion tends to be spot on IMO. I will paste in a few things he had to say which happened to take me by surprise. What preluded this response was my question about a particular cigar we both enjoy. I was questioning which years he thought smoked well. Below is a portion of his response.

*I have to tell you, things have been so much better post 03, that I almost never smoke old cigars anymore, even if they were cheaper. 03 is the oldest I will buy to smoke nowadays. The tobacco is just better. My experience has been that 03-04 smokes kill vintage smokes.
*

This is coming from a guy who has a pretty serious collection and a lot of knowledge about cigars. I understand sometimes there is no parallel between a collection and knowledge or experience but that is not the case here.

I personally have had less than a handful of what I would consider Vintage cigars. Most of everything else I have smoked aged or not would be post 96...the majority being 02-forward. That being said, I don't feel I personally have the experience to have much of an opinion on the matter. I would be interested in hearing what some other smokers have to say on this subject...smokers WITH firsthand experience.

I was reading an article about a Cuban tobacco farmer recently and he stated the quality of tobacco over the past few years has been much better than in years past. Costs go up...old boxes disappear. Perhaps we are in a New Golden Age of Havanas...with Castro fading things could change permanently.


----------



## omowasu (Aug 9, 2006)

I am in the same "boat" with vintage cigars - I have had maybe a couple with a few more waiting in the wings. But many of the vintage aficionados I have seen and heard from can note specific tastes that are absent in newer cigars. Some attribute this to soil erosion or mineral depletion from the fields.

I once remember talking to a gentleman who told me that back in the day, cigars came from the island much "darker" than today, and had very distinct flavors - not to mention a very strong hit of vitamin N. Anyone else have thoughts on this topic? Definitely interesting!


----------



## gvarsity (Dec 12, 2006)

I remember having a conversation with my dad in the late 80's early 90's about the quality of Cuban Cigars. He said that since just a few years after the embargo the Cubans stopped rotating their tobacco crops the way they used too. From what I understand tobacco is an incredibly demanding plant on the ground and there should be multiple years of alternate crops or lying fallow to allow the land to recover. The stated reason was it was by far the biggest most profitable crop the Cubans had so they increased and sped up their productions cycles. This is all speculation from a memory of a fifteen year old conversation. He did own a tobacco shop at the time and knew a lot of serious cigar smokers. I suspect the cigar boom only added to that but that is complete speculation. Anyway it's worth what it cost you.


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

This is a question that has been on my mind during the past few months. I wanted to bump this thread closer to the top …. hope that it might generate more discussion from some of the more experienced apes.

I'm a total newb to the world of Habanos ... but I'm in a freefall down the slope. The oldest cigar in my rotation is 97. Smoking some 98's, quite a few from 00 and all the rest are 02 or younger. Absolutely no experience with really vintage cigars.

The 97 is excellent. I really haven't been all that impressed with the 98-00 cigars. However, the 02 and younger have been outstanding.

I too have seen the discussion about how more recent cigars seem to be missing flavors that were there 10+ years ago. I've also read about the cash flow pressures that may have rushed Cubans onto the market. On the other hand, I've heard about some improved post-harvest quality controls that have been implemented in recent years.

It is very possible that production pressures have placed a strain on the land's ability to grow quality tobacco. If that's the case, is the good quality of recent production the result of improved post-harvest blending, curing, aging or marketing techniques? Have there been changes, perhaps biotech, to the seed stock that is being grown? Or, is all of this just the result of the growing conditions that make some crop years better than others?

As "they" say, inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

I agree on '02+ cigars. There's much less lemons per box, and the quality is consistent across the board. Improved curing and drying, infrastructure improvements- both in the rolling rooms and farms have obviously yielded a better product.


----------



## jgros001 (Jun 14, 2005)

I do not have nearly the experience to make personal comments but what I do hear is that there has been a homogenization of flavors, ie a Partagas does not taste as much like a Partagas did say 10-15 years ago. That the blends are too similar today in that a Romeo is harder to distinguish from a Punch. Now not having the experience of smoking these cigars for the most part from that era, I can only state what I hear. Also, the move towards lightening the blends and that today's cigars are not as strong as in the past. Here is one thread with a great discussion:

http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?t=613&page=3


----------



## muziq (Mar 14, 2005)

I don't really have anything to add, just want to bump this thread up and beg some of the FOGs to weigh in. I've been seeing some vintage out there, and recently purchased (have yet to receive) some '02 stock, and now thanks to this thread am concerned it might not have been $ wisely invested. I've received some 90's-era smokes through trades and nearly all of them have been astounding...even compared to my '05 and '06 sticks. But mostly I'd say that it's a matter of "different" versus "one being better than the other" for me so far.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

mosesbotbol said:


> I agree on '02+ cigars. There's much less lemons per box, and the quality is consistent across the board. Improved curing and drying, infrastructure improvements- both in the rolling rooms and farms have obviously yielded a better product.


Agreed,

I think the quality of many of the recent run of cigars has been spot on. I dig vintage smokes the same as just about anybody, but even among the vintage stock I have found some that were downright displeasing!

ATL


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

Could some of the lack of success with "vintage" cigars be due to improper handling of said cigar by the vendor? The rotating crops theory sounds reasonable. Can someone chime in on the idea/theory that following the '99 production year, that the '00 qc was much better?


----------



## ss396 (Sep 24, 2005)

the new cigars are much better than 2000-2001 era. it is hard to compare a recent cigar to a vintage cigar in a meaningful way because they are in different phases of their development. i can say that for my own taste i prefer cigars aged 6 years or more. the flavor profile has changed signifigantly in that time and becomes in my opinion more refined. overall perceived strength and spiciness has diminished and the flavors have blended to more balanced state. many other members with more experience and resources than i have find that 15-25 year old cigars take this another level, but i don't have any experience there.


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

jgros001 said:


> I do not have nearly the experience to make personal comments but what I do hear is that there has been a homogenization of flavors, ie a Partagas does not taste as much like a Partagas did say 10-15 years ago. That the blends are too similar today in that a Romeo is harder to distinguish from a Punch. Now not having the experience of smoking these cigars for the most part from that era, I can only state what I hear. Also, the move towards lightening the blends and that today's cigars are not as strong as in the past. Here is one thread with a great discussion:
> 
> http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?t=613&page=3


Thanks for tossing this thread into the discussion. While it focuses primarily on a somewhat different issue, it has a lot of opinions from many FOGs that seem to relate to the question at hand.


----------



## TechMetalMan (Apr 2, 2006)

Sorry to jump in on this as I really have very limited experience with Habanos all of it has been new stock. I have smoked 10-12 Cuban cigars and all within 4-5 years I would guess.

But I will throw my 2 cents in anyway.

The original post stated that a guy who has a large collection and tons of experience with Habanos is now claiming he likes newer production cigars over some of his vintage stock. 

What I think we all have to remember is that taste is truly subjective. Perhaps his tastes have changed? Perhaps he has smoked enough vintage stuff that none of it seems to be very different at this point and he wants a change of pace and is smoking younger smokes. Just an idea.

But it also seems that many of the BOTL's here with some true experience have been saying that the last two or three years has been very good for cigars in Cuba. 

Dustin (LXXX) has been seen saying that much of his 06 stock has been spot on and rockin' but at the same time he has many vintage cigars. So I think it just comes down to many factors...some uncontrollable (weather).

I don't know...I'm probably not saying anything that others have not...just thought I'd jump in.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

jgros001 said:


> I do not have nearly the experience to make personal comments but what I do hear is that there has been a homogenization of flavors, ie a Partagas does not taste as much like a Partagas did say 10-15 years ago.


I have to agree on that one too. I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, what I thought a brand should taste like, doesn't really seem to taste like that anymore. Bolivar and Partagas are the two that come to mind.

Maybe my memories made them into something they aren't?


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

Bigwaved said:


> Could some of the lack of success with "vintage" cigars be due to improper handling of said cigar by the vendor?


I doubt that, there's not much handling when it comes to cigars. Put in a controlled humidified room and that is it...


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

mosesbotbol said:


> I doubt that, there's not much handling when it comes to cigars. Put in a controlled humidified room and that is it...


That is true, but isn't it possible this is not always the way they are kept? I liken this to knowing how meat should be stored properly doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Just a thought, nothing more. Thinking out loud, I suppose.


----------



## jgros001 (Jun 14, 2005)

Bigwaved said:


> That is true, but isn't it possible this is not always the way they are kept? I liken this to knowing how meat should be stored properly doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Just a thought, nothing more. Thinking out loud, I suppose.


Yes, I agree that it is not as simple as Moses says. Take for example vintage cigars from the UK, and someone please correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that controlled humidity for cigar shops is relatively new to the UK. http://www.uk-cigars.co.uk/archives/wets.htm Now their weather is quite favorable...cool and humid but not at all controlled. So cigars from the '80s may not be all they can be if purchased from a UK shop.


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

I like to think of it as "the gap". 

Have never smoked an 03 and forward cigar that I said "damn thats one of the best cigars I ever smoked". Many seem to have great construction and nice initial flavors but the "age thing" seems to have merit in creating a classic flavor profile. 99-01 cigars seem to be very inconsistent. Some suck, some are good. I have to take others word for the relative inconsistency vs prior periods but it makes sense in the context of the boom regarding quality leaf and roller skill. However, have to disagree with the "current comparision" of 02 and forward now vs vintage regarding a preference. Unless you have smoked "a classic" it's like trying to explain good sex to a virgin. Not a comment on contruction or potential just one of what age has done to the older cigar in comparision to the newer one. In my experience they are birds of a different feather.

Are todays cigars better off the boat in general? The consensus seems to be yes. Is there much greater consistency in quality across the factories? The consensus seems to be yes. The upgrades in equipment in the regionals seems to have lessened the importance of factory of origin. But does the subject of "cooking" have any merit? The statement that "all cigars have been frozen since 2003" is also interesting if true. Does freezing have some detrimental affect on the long term potential of a cigar? I dunno. The change in wrappers in the late 90's. The multiple changes in blend in the 80's and 90's. What is not clear is have the very things that have created greater consistency and initial good flavors impacted the ability of the cigars to mature and evolve. The new wrappers. The seeming narrowing of brand flavors. The emphasis on RE and LE runs at premium prices and it's impact on the availability of leaf for regular production cigars.

The confusion is amplified by initial release flavors vs what happens later in a cigar. An example is the late 02 Cohiba selection vs the mid 03 boxes. Just tried the new Sig II tubos. Thought they were one of the best fresh cigars I had ever had. Voted with my checkbook deep over concern that they will change after the initial release. Same thing with the new PL Lonsdales.

If you find something you like you should buy more. Agricultural products are never going to be 100% consistent even with identical assembly processes which we know for cigars is not the case. Bought a box of mag 46's from august of 05 that I loved. So, went out and bought more of the same box codes. Fully expect that for my taste buds, they probably will get worse before they get better, if they do.

My definition of "the gap" is the period of time it is going to take for the newer cigars you own to mature into a more pleasing, to you, not fresh profile. For some cigars this might be only a couple years. But they also might evolve into something classic in a couple decades. It's so confusing. In the mean time you need to smoke something. For me it's a combination of cigars I like fresh/newer and older/vintage cigars. Vintage is a relative term. Used to think 97-98 cigars were vintage. Hey, we all have to start somewhere. 

Older cigars (late 90's) that are still available like the 97 Boli PC's have that floral note subtle but rich evolved taste to me vs the same cigar fresh. Have had older ones that I did not like as well. Obviously not the same cigar other than the name, size and box. Will the new production cigars "evolve"? You would think so. Will they evolve in the same way? Probably not. Could be better. Could be worse. Today's cigars seem to have rich flavor profiles that are pleasing, but in comparision lack the subtle intricate flavors and changes of more aged sticks. To me at least, some of the least pleasing intitial flavors/ young tannic flavors, come from the RE's. Could this be that they are more like the traditional blends/process. Dunno.

To me cigar smoking is a multifaceted experience. When someone I respect / like gives me a cigar it makes the cigar better. Like this makes the subject any easier. 

Broad brushes are difficult to paint intricate images. Cigar appreciation is just that, intricate and subtle. The top 25 cigars I have smoked are all at least 20 years old. Interestingly the top 5 don't start with the letter D. But a bunch of the rest do.  

If you are in it for the long run you would hope that if you buy broad enough, some of your cigars will evolve into flavors that you love more than others. One of the advantages of buying "vintage classics" is that this process has already been determined. Not sure which is more economical in the long run.

Add to the mix storage conditions, RH, Temperature, air flow vs sealed and you get one confusing issue looking in the long term.

So an opinion from a relative newcomer, seems like we live in the "best of times" regarding the quality and smokability of recent production cigars. However, comparing them stick to stick today to 20 year old vintage cigars and drawing conclusions is ... well a bit silly. But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong for anyone's taste but mine.

Smoke em if ya got em.


----------



## lenguamor (Nov 23, 2006)

Good job, Dave.


----------



## kheffelf (Jul 31, 2006)

Thanks Dave for your insight.:w


----------



## Rploaded (Nov 7, 2006)

Interesting comments Dave, very well written also.

I really enjoyed the section where you mention having a cigar gifted becoming more enjoyable....... I find this very true.


----------



## dadof3illinois (Nov 7, 2004)

Great post Dave!!

IMO I think it depends on what your looking to do with your stock? If your looking to age cigars for your own personal consumption then at the 5-7 year mark you've got some nice smoking stock and IMO recent cigars fit this area best right now.

If your looking for long term storage of investment stock then it's anybody's guess as to how todays cigars will age. But wasn't it that way back in the late 80's and early 90's? I would think people were asking the same questions back during all the blend changes. There are a ton of great cigars from this time frame.

I haven't smoked enough true "vintage" cigars to really comment much on this but I wouldn't be afraid of aging some of the recent blends.


----------



## gvarsity (Dec 12, 2006)

I really liked Daves piece really pointing out the apples to oranges difference between aged smokes and fresh smokes. I think when I read your post I assumed, big mistake I know, that you meant 02 and later were seemed better at their relative age than did some of the earlier years from the late 90's early 00's. I make no claims to expertice I am just trying to logic it out in my own head. If the Cigar boom had a negative effect on the tobacco production process it would take a couple of years for that effect to be felt. Taking into account aging times of tobacco leaf could this difference be because these cigars are some of the first post boom era cigars? 2002 cigars would perhaps have had their tobacco grown and harvested sometime between 1997-1999 tail end of the boom. I don't know just speculating and I find it really interesting.


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

What I like about this discussion is that it is food for thought. Speaking from a greenhorn's point of view, that is not bad. Putting some of your purchases away for personal aging, like Jerry mentions, is smart, but difficult in my opinion. I like to read about and ask more seasoned cigar smokers about the historical performance of brands and vitolas. This helps me make more informed decisions, but in no way does it guarantee success. Time will tell if I my method of madness pays off. What I can say is that the research and discussion of the nuances of this hobby are a very large part of the draw to participate. Who hasn't been at a herf and had one of those "ah ha" moments. Sometimes something very obvious to some is not to others.


----------



## TheDirector (Nov 22, 2006)

My personal experience with tobacco growing is that the land, the climate and the fertilizer & nutrients all have *great impact *on the final product. Variances in these factors can give dramatically different results from the same seeds. We all know how construction can make or break your smoking experience also. There are a ton of variables before we ever to get to aging and handling. Seems alot like the vintage wine thing to me. I think we gotta keep on :ss :al

I have read that Cuba has been creating improved tobacco varieties (hybrids) that could have had an impact on consistency of product across the board over the last few years. I would like to know if any BOTL's have insight into this aspect?


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

Learning about cigars has been a primary part of my enjoyment of this hobby. It’s equally, if not more, important as I tumble down this new slope. 

Dave made a pretty solid case for the merits of aged cigars. I think a lot of us believe that aging changes and often improves a cigar's flavor. Heck, it’s even improved some disagreeable NC’s in my humidor. Unfortunately, a lot of us have very limited access to true vintage classics. And, at my age (old geezer), I will likely be long gone before anything I buy now evolves into a classic. No doubt these are interesting questions for some of you younger apes. 

My questions seem to focus on learning from those FOGs that came to this slope many years before me. 

Cuban cigar production seems such a mystery to me. I hear and read bits and pieces here and there. There seem to have been changes in wrappers, blends and perhaps even basic seed stock. Some believe the cigar boom may have depleted the soil but I have heard nothing about new fertilizers or other changes in growing techniques. On the production side, we’ve heard about freezing and new equipment. I’d like to know more about the impact that Altadis has had on the basic growing and production philosophy.

I have to think that all of these changes have changed the cigars … for better and/or worse. It seems to me that all of the discussion about the quality of recent production may be one indication of that. And, the thread included by jgros001 had a lot of interesting insights into changes in flavor profiles. The relative quality of cigars still seems to be an unanswered question in this discussion. For example, how does a young 05 compare to a young 87? Perhaps there is a FOG with a lot of experience and a long memory who could shed some more light on this question?

Sorry to be so windy. I’m just really interested in these kinds of questions.


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

qwerty1500 said:


> Learning about cigars has been a primary part of my enjoyment of this hobby. It's equally, if not more, important as I tumble down this new slope.
> 
> Dave made a pretty solid case for the merits of aged cigars. I think a lot of us believe that aging changes and often improves a cigar's flavor. Heck, it's even improved some disagreeable NC's in my humidor. Unfortunately, a lot of us have very limited access to true vintage classics. And, at my age (old geezer), I will likely be long gone before anything I buy now evolves into a classic. No doubt these are interesting questions for some of you younger apes.
> 
> ...


:tpd: Mo? Poker? Drill? Et. Al. It's FOG time.


----------



## Gargamel (Nov 8, 2004)

Da Klugs said:


> :tpd: Mo? Poker? Drill? Et. Al. It's FOG time.


Bruce, Fredster, Brandon....


----------



## bassrocker (Oct 26, 2006)

Da Klugs said:


> I like to think of it as "the gap".
> 
> Have never smoked an 03 and forward cigar that I said "damn thats one of the best cigars I ever smoked". Many seem to have great construction and nice initial flavors but the "age thing" seems to have merit in creating a classic flavor profile. 99-01 cigars seem to be very inconsistent. Some suck, some are good. I have to take others word for the relative inconsistency vs prior periods but it makes sense in the context of the boom regarding quality leaf and roller skill. However, have to disagree with the "current comparision" of 02 and forward now vs vintage regarding a preference. Unless you have smoked "a classic" it's like trying to explain good sex to a virgin. Not a comment on contruction or potential just one of what age has done to the older cigar in comparision to the newer one. In my experience they are birds of a different feather.
> 
> ...


Well put Dave, You simply just can not compare to two.
Before i had any vintage smokes , I thought the ones i had were Great.
And i'm really enjoying learning about how the different blends seem to change with age. It's a good thing that i have a friend like the Fredster that can help me on my way. Through Fred i have had the privilege to sample many vintage cigars , my humidor is full of incredible vintage smokes. 
I love learning something new about aged smokes , Thanks for the review.

Mike


----------



## Bubba -NJ (Dec 6, 2005)

This is a great thread , very insightful . :ss This is purely speculation , since the corporate involvement in Cuba tobacco started , it would make sense to me that they(Altadis , I think)would have some input into the farming of the tobacco , adding fertilizers to the soil and other agricultural adjustments as needed .


----------



## qwerty1500 (Feb 24, 2006)

Bubba -NJ said:


> This is a great thread , very insightful . :ss This is purely speculation , since the corporate involvement in Cuba tobacco started , it would make sense to me that they(Altadis , I think)would have some input into the farming of the tobacco , adding fertilizers to the soil and other agricultural adjustments as needed .


I wonder about this too.


----------



## Bigwaved (May 20, 2006)

A similar discussion:

http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17470


----------

